The Irony! (warning: this is a political post)

[Dis]

yawn

how much of the world supported war against Milosevich?

A few European countries and the U.S. but I do remember Russia being against it (until victory was imminent), and China was probably against it.

I think it is safe to say that a majority of the world was against action then.

Why is it Bill Clinton can get away with this stuff and George Bush cannot?

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Dissident

Why is it Bill Clinton can get away with this stuff and George Bush cannot?

Because George is a moron.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by srholmes
UK: 81% of 60 m = 28.5 m

I see dodgy maths here

[lightblue]

Originally posted by Drogue
Even if we don't have a world state yet, Britain (or rather Blair) claims to want to further democracy, but most British people are against it. How can we export democracy when we don't practice it?

There's a difference between a parliamentary democracy and total democracy. In the UK system you elect people who you trust to take your decisions for you, whereas in a total democracy you would expect to be making the decisions yourself (I think Switzerland is probably the closest example of this).

If the UK was a total democracy then capital punishment would be legalised and the borders would be completely closed to alysum seekers.

[Az]

Since we have no "World Constitution" and Intl. law is applied whenever the big boys want to apply it, ( and sometimes, they don't agree between eachother, so nothing is done, because enforcing an intl. law against something as large as the US or EU, is silly to contemplate at this point ), the whole debate is void of meaning, since there is no law, no basic laws to define the society, and no force to enforce it. Under these conditions,while the opinion of the majority, is as good a reason as any to oppose the war, it is also as meaningless.

[Ned]

Actually, Fleischer this morning made a point about the failure of the UN to act in Rawanda, to act in Kosovo and now to act in Iraq.

If the UN is ever to be relevant to world peace, it should be willing to act under these kind of circumstances. The fact that it does not, renders its continuing utility for security and peace suspect.

The US will continue to look out for its own interests. But, when US interests are not threatened, will the UN or the US act in the future when another Rawanda or Cambodia happens? I doubt it.

Does anyone here doubt it?

[srholmes]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


I see dodgy maths here

hehe, thanks, i have corrected this now, it was a typo....

[Sava]

Bush and company want to spread Democracy (yeah right) but don't want to be held accountable by it.

Anyways, I think that's BS. Bush and company don't care about spreading Democracy.... they care about killing Saddam. But I'll gladly retract this statement if Bush extends his crusade to oil-free African countries that are under the gun of a dictator. Or to China for that matter.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ned
Actually, Fleischer this morning made a point about the failure of the UN to act in Rawanda, to act in Kosovo and now to act in Iraq.

How do you want the UN to "act" in Rwanda? Considering that there have been a whole truck load of resolutions for the country (e.g. 1161), and even an International Tribunal has been set up for it, what else do you want? If the US is so big on human rights, why didn't it intervene?

As for Kosovo, there so far has been no evidence of ethnic cleansing. I thought we have already beat this to death. Why are you bringing it up again?

Originally posted by Ned
If the UN is ever to be relevant to world peace, it should be willing to act under these kind of circumstances. The fact that it does not, renders its continuing utility for security and peace suspect.

Snooze, more silly rhetoric. How is Iraq a threat to world peace?